I know that Hypo-Orthodox and Joe Zollars expressed an interest in hearing more about Heiromonk James' Monastery and Western Rite Liturgy. Here is a link to a recent response by Fr. James to FIRST THINGS Magazine as well as his phone number, address and Liturgy schedule. I hope it is of help.

Hypo-Ortho

Thanks, Nik. I've taken down all the appropriate information, and when the snow recedes and my ROCOR godson has a school vacation, perhaps we'll make a mini-pilgrimage together to Pawtucket, RI, to the Orthodox Western Rite monastery there.

At this time, the only canonical Church that has "ewestern rite" parishes is the Antiochian Orthodox Church. Two versions of the "western rite" have been approved:

1) The "Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great" which is an English translation of the Tridentine Latin Rite with some "corrections" and some prayers borrowed from the Byzantine Liturgy, and an Epiclesis of the byzantine rite added.

2) The "Liturgy of St. Tychon", which is a "corrected" version of a conservative Anglican Prayer Book with numerous prayers borrowed from the byzantine rite, and even from the modern Catholic Mass.

It is very true that the supporters of the "western rites" have rightful intentions in trying to reconcile those christians who were alienated because of liturgical abuses in their former parishes, to the Orthodox Church, but for many authors, the "restoration" of western liturgies has a problem of legitimacy and practice. According to father A. Schmemann, the liturgy currently used at the Western Vicariate, is not the pre-schism liturgy in its fulness, as some subtle modifications to the Latin Mass were done immediately after the schism, and then in Trent as a reaction against Protestantism (two moments of severe crisis in the West). But the most serious thing is what happened many centuries later, in our times.

It can be said that even if the liturgy celebrated in the WRV, although not 100% the pre-schism mass, is the fruitful tridentine liturgy, that fostered holliness, serenity, vocations and sanctity to the Latin Church. However, the liturgy of the WRV is, most likely, not the Tridentine Mass either. What they have there is in fact a translation of the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. It is important to notice that this Missal already contained changes such as the supression of collects, the last gospel and the prayers of the altar on many ocasions; the conmemoration of saints made optional on sundays and lower ranking fests; and modifications in the mass propers and the services of Holy Week. This transitional missal became obsollete only three years after its promulgation, before it was replaced by Paul VI's mass.

It would be difficult to say what liturgy is really followed in the WRV because, the rubrics are a mishmash of Byzantine and Western elements, traditional and modern. The whole Liturgy is celebrated in English, just like in the last year of the 1962 Missal. Many customs have been borrowed from the Episcopalians but were already present in the Missal, such as lay readers and priest facing the congregation, and protestant hymns. Elements from the byzantine liturgy such as the veneration of icons and some traditions have been incorporated, and "native" elements have appeared such as the very eclectic way in which communion is given.

According to Fr. Schmemann, Eastern Orthodox would probably not feel confortable and would abstain for communion, a tridentinist would not agree with those notorious changes, and it wouldn't be the way modern anglicans and catholics worship. The Orthodox Bishops of other jurisdictions were very critical. The Greek Orthodox Bishop of St Francisco issued a letter discouraging their faithful to attend those parishes and forbiding the concelebration with those priests.

If the first liturgy has some problems, the second one, named after St Tychon is seriously defficient. First of all it comes from a Protestant Church and we have no doubts that Protestantism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Since its creation, that liturgy was filed with the spirit of Protestantism. It had to be corrected with Russian Orthodox liturgical texts in a way, that it looks a little bit like an abreviated Liturgy of St John Chrisostom, but apparently, some prayers from pope Paul's mass were added to it in order to "connect" the texts.

Many western rite parishes, after seeing the inviability of their work, have turned inti byzantine ones. There's also the belief that the western rite would be seen as a kind of "reverse uniatism", and not as a helpful way to reconcile East and West.

Hypo-Ortho

Remie, ROCOR is canonical too and I believe they are using the Sarum Rite in most of their Western Rite Churches.

It will be some time, but when my godson and I do make it to Fr. James's small Christ the Savior Western Rite ROCOR Monastery in Pawtucket, RI, I'll be sure to let you all know which Western Rite is used there. I personally am familiar enough with both pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II Latin Rite usages to recognize them when I see them.

Given the opposition of the ROCOR to the "ecumenist heresy" and the "branch theory" I didn't know that the ROCOR had western rite parishes.

If I am not mistaken, the "Sarum Rite" is an old latin liturgy, different from the Roman Mass, which for some writers and historians was the "national" pre-schism liturgy of Britain. The first supporters of the restoration of this national liturgy were the Anglicans, in their attempt to re-create an independent Church in England. Some Anglican authors even revised history stating that the British Church was always an independent Church with an independent christianity and totally separated from the Roman West, and that then the "evil romists" came and supressed the independence of the British Church and their rite.

The problem of the restoration of liturgies like the "Sarum Rite" or the "Galican Rite" or the "Liturgy of St. Peter" is the opposite to that of the "Tridentine Use" or "Anglican Use" in the WRV of the Antiochian Church.

I believe that the attempts to restore the ancient past regardless of the natural "organic" development of the Liturgy is not better than the "liturgical reform" that tends to create something new and unprecedented. maybe this will sound nbad,he artificial re-creation of ancient rites can lead us to a liturgical fiction or to a "false archeologism", this is not recommendable.

Given the opposition of the ROCOR to the "ecumenist heresy" and the "branch theory" I didn't know that the ROCOR had western rite parishes

Culturally surprising but theologically not really — an exclusive ecclesiology producing a reverse ‘Uniatism’ or as I have called it, a spite church.

Quote

If I am not mistaken, the "Sarum Rite" is an old latin liturgy, different from the Roman Mass, which for some writers and historians was the "national" pre-schism liturgy of Britain. The first supporters of the restoration of this national liturgy were the Anglicans, in their attempt to re-create an independent Church in England. Some Anglican authors even revised history stating that the British Church was always an independent Church with an independent christianity and totally separated from the Roman West, and that then the "evil romists" came and supressed the independence of the British Church and their rite.

You are somewhat mistaken. It is a old Latin liturgy but a ‘use’ (recension) of the Roman Rite, not a different rite. And it, originally the missal of the diocese of Salisbury, hence its name, was the usage of the Roman Catholic Church throughout medieval England. The Anglicans actually got rid of it in 1549 (about 15 years after their founding as a schism), replacing it with the first Book of Common Prayer. Attempts at reviving it, along with the anglocentric fairy tale about a completely non-Roman English Church, were Anglican and date from about the 19th century.

Quote

The problem of the restoration of liturgies like the "Sarum Rite" or the "Galican Rite" or the "Liturgy of St. Peter" is the opposite to that of the "Tridentine Use" or "Anglican Use" in the WRV of the Antiochian Church.

I believe that the attempts to restore the ancient past regardless of the natural "organic" development of the Liturgy is not better than the "liturgical reform" that tends to create something new and unprecedented. maybe this will sound nbad,he artificial re-creation of ancient rites can lead us to a liturgical fiction or to a "false archeologism", this is not recommendable.

I think I've written the same thing online, including on my Faith page. The term I use is 'liturgical hothouse flower', an artificial creation cut off from the living tradition of a community. Not a good way to go, even though the liturgies so constructed can be beautiful and orthodox as indeed the pseudo-Gallican missal is.

James the Just

I own two old Roman Catholic Sunday Missals that could supply some information and possibly shed some light on the subject, Saint Paul Edition 1953 and a 1956 Confraternity of the Precious Blood , both have Latin/English Text and if i remember correctly its the Tridentine Mass Missal.

james

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

I own two old Roman Catholic Sunday Missals that could supply some information and possibly shed some light on the subject, Saint Paul Edition 1953 and a 1956 Confraternity of the Precious Blood , both have Latin/English Text and if i remember correctly its the Tridentine Mass Missal.

james

My wife, a native of L'viv (Lwow, Lvov, Lemberg) had (and may still have somewhere) a thick old Polish RC daily missal printed in Belgium sometime in the 1930's, as I recall (it survived her "stay" in a refugee camp in Germany). It even used "Old Polish" (before Polish spelling and phraseology were "standardized" in the 1940's) in the Trisagion and other places, which closely resembled Old Slavonic (e.g., "nini i prisno"), and included many elements of the Latin Divine Office (Matins "Matutinum", Vespers "Nieszpory") as well as some hymns identical to those of the Carpatho-Rusyn Uniates, except in Polish rather than Carpatho-Rusyn. I do read some Polish, so if it comes down to it, that's a place I can go to compare after visiting Pawtucket.

You say it is a Polish RC missal, but that the trisagion was in Old Polish. I have never heard the trisagion in a Roman Mass, even the Old Mass, if I am not mistaken never had the trisagion as a part of the Latin Liturgy.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Hypo-Ortho

You say it is a Polish RC missal, but that the trisagion was in Old Polish. I have never heard the trisagion in a Roman Mass, even the Old Mass, if I am not mistaken never had the trisagion as a part of the Latin Liturgy.

James, the Trisagion *was always* included in the old pre-Vatican II Latin Rite RC "Mass of the Presanctified" on Western Good Friday. While not included in the "full" Mass, it *WAS* included in some other services of the Latin Rite. Since Vatican II, however, the "Novus Ordo" rite may have eliminated it, e.g., in the Novus Ordo "Good Friday Liturgy" which replaced the Mass of the Presanctified. If this is the case, it's sad as the Trisagion used to be a common denominator of almost all Eastern and Western Rites, almost like the Greek "Kyrie Eleison."

...as well as some hymns identical to those of the Carpatho-Rusyn Uniates, except in Polish rather than Carpatho-Rusyn. Hypo-Ortho

It is rather well known and accepted that indeed many of the non-liturgical "hymns" sung in the Carpatho-Russian Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox Churches are of Polish RC origin. There is also at least one hymn that is also sung by Hungarian RCs as well. I suppose it could have been taken from the BCs to the RCs but that seems unlikely. Even the "Preterpivyj" is said to be of Polish RC origin. The "supplikacio" melodies are also said to be of Polish RC origin.

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner ...I'll see you when yo

Since Vatican II, however, the "Novus Ordo" rite may have eliminated it, e.g., in the Novus Ordo "Good Friday Liturgy" which replaced the Mass of the Presanctified. If this is the case, it's sad as the Trisagion used to be a common denominator of almost all Eastern and Western Rites, almost like the Greek "Kyrie Eleison."

Hypo-Ortho

Nah, it's still there in the Improperia of Good Friday. The only problem is that the Improperia are somewhat optional, I think, so you may not even hear it then.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

James the Just

I guess there are quite a few of us older RC'S that are not enthused with the present Roman Rite and other particulars with the Church of Rome. Wish I could remember my experiences at church way back then. I've been reading about the Orthodox Church and find a few points of agreement so far, will continue to research the book and glean info from the forum and associated sites.

Yes, thanks for refreshing my memory. I have an Old Latin Missal of 1945 I think and the trisagion is included in the Improperium of Holy Thrusday, in Greek and then in Latin, before the adoration of the Holy Cross.I remember that not so long ago in Mexico City, in Holy Friday I was walking near a Roman parish and I heard people reciting the trisagion in Greek and doing the improperia. I've seen that roman masses vary a lot from parish to parish and even more from country to country, here the RC has preserved more things.

Nah, it's still there in the Improperia of Good Friday. The only problem is that the Improperia are somewhat optional, I think, so you may not even hear it then.

Actually dear brother Philip, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops BANNED the usage of the Improperia during Good Friday because of protests by Jewish groups saying that the Improperia was racist and anti-Jewish. Instead it is now replaced with Psalm 66.

Perfect example of how the Roman Catholics will concede everything they have just to appease the people.

I know, it sounds laughable, but go to google and type in Improperia NCCB and click on the first link. There's some other stuff floating around there but I don't have the time or patience to find it.

Actually dear brother Philip, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops BANNED the usage of the Improperia during Good Friday because of protests by Jewish groups saying that the Improperia was racist and anti-Jewish. Instead it is now replaced with Psalm 66.

Man, that's really dumb.

When did that happen? Only a few years ago I went to a Latin church for Good Friday and they recited the Improperia. Then last year I went to an evening service and heard some folk hymn instead. I actually liked the Improperia, it was one of the more profound hymn selections the rites for the day prescribed. It's a pity that they've been abandoned out of fear of offending people who don't attend church at all.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

If you go to that site and scroll down about a third of the way, you'll see the text of the Improperia as it appears in the old Roman rite. I don't know if they have any post-Vatican II texts of this since it has been banned.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

So what is it? Is there an Orthodox counterpart in the Holy Friday services?

Elisha,

Here's a definition of what the Improperia is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

ImproperiaThe Improperia are the reproaches which in the liturgy of the Office of Good Friday the Saviour is made to utter against the Jews, who, in requital for all the Divine favours and particularly for the delivery from the bondage of Egypt and safe conduct into the Promised Land, inflicted on Him the ignominies of the Passion and a cruel death. It is during the Adoration of the Cross that these touching remonstrances are rendered by the choir. In all they consist of three distinct parts. Of these the third -- composed of the antiphon "Crucem tuam adoramus", the first verse of Psalm lxvi, the versicle "Crux fidelis", and the hymn "Pange lingua gloriosi lauream" -- does not belong to the Improperia strictly so called. The first part consists of three reproaches, namely, the Popule meus" (Mich., vi, 3), "Ego eduxi" (Jer., ii, 21) and "Quid ultra" (Is., v, 2, 40), the Trisagion (Sanctus Deus, Santus fortis, Sanctus immortalis) being repeated after each in the Latin and Greek languages. The second part contains nine reproaches pervaded by the same strain of remonstrance. Each of these is a verse taken from some portion of the Scriptures and followed in every instance by the "Popule meus" as a sort of refrain.

I don't think there is anything similar in Orthodoxy, is there?

Brigid

Logged

BrÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â­d Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, GuÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â­ Orainn

Hypo-Ortho

I don't think that we divide up the Trisagion anywhere with interspersed verses anywhere in the Byzantine Rite, Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic, Brigid. And we certainly don't confine the Trisagion only to Great and Holy Friday (it's one of our most used prayers), but during the procession with the Epitaphios (Plaschanitza) at the Matins of Holy Saturday (normally "anticipated" on the evening of Great Friday), the Trisagion is chanted in a slow and solemn manner, for even in death, the Lord Jesus is still Master of the living and the dead.

Thanks Hypo-Ortho. I didn't remember encountering anything similar to the Improperia, but I have only had one experience of Orthodox Holy Week thus far! Alas, I am too young to have experienced traditional Catholic Holy Week either so can only go by my trusty Father Lasance Roman Missal. The Improperia is an interesting rite whose development I'd like to know more about. I wonder why the Trisagion appears at this point?

Certainly at the Novus Ordo Good Friday services I experienced we in the congregation formed the crowd shouting for Christ to be crucified so the anti-semitic overtones were lost on me. It was more like "were you there when they crucified my Lord?" and the answer was yes, I was part of the mob demanding His death!

If the first liturgy has some problems, the second one, named after St Tychon is seriously defficient. First of all it comes from a Protestant Church and we have no doubts that Protestantism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Since its creation, that liturgy was filed with the spirit of Protestantism. It had to be corrected with Russian Orthodox liturgical texts in a way, that it looks a little bit like an abreviated Liturgy of St John Chrisostom, but apparently, some prayers from pope Paul's mass were added to it in order to "connect" the texts.

I would have to question the assertion that "Protestantism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy"; Anglican liturgists have always looked to earlier liturgies (whether or not they felt compelled to reproduce their details), and they can hardly be blamed, as a Western church, if they do not choose to copy what, for the Western churches, are Eastern innovations (e.g. the multiplicity of litanies in modern Eastern rites). I feel moved to ask if a pre-schism Western rite would be acceptable as is, whether in Latin or in translation.

I'm also curious as to exactly what it is about the rite that is unacceptably Protestant-- not because it was written by Protestants, but because it conflicts with Orthodox doctrine.

I counted, by the way, only two insertions from the the Roman rite (not counting the peculiar introit). One of these is commonly inserted by Anglo-Catholics anyway, and possibly the other as well (I don't recollect sufficiently). The change in the epiclesis I think would be objected to as implying transsubstantiation (as opposed to cons-- the modern rites tend to prefer the phrase "be the body and blood").

The change in the epiclesis I think would be objected to as implying transsubstantiation (as opposed to cons-- the modern rites tend to prefer the phrase "be the body and blood").

Just to be clear: I think the change would be objected to by Anglicans in an Anglican rite. (Not so much because Anglicans disbelieve in trans-, but because the liturgists don't want to insist that people have to believe in it.)

I'm also curious as to exactly what it is about the rite that is unacceptably Protestant-- not because it was written by Protestants, but because it conflicts with Orthodox doctrine.

Actually the rite was corrected, as I said, to make it more according to Orthodox doctrine, but the original rite even without the byzantine epiclesis and other corrections would have seemed "acceptable". The first Anglican liturgies were meant to be ambiguous so that they were accepted by the Catholic-minded Anglican, and those with moderated Protestant ideas.

In my opinion, even if the Anglican liturgists had the best intention to incorporate eastern elements and to have a reverent and holy liturgy, it was a composed liturgy, fabricated with various elements and some innovations.

The Anglican services are obviously offshoots of the Roman Rite, except possibly for the Communion service, which is at least slightly Protestant in text content and has lots of original compositions by Thomas Cranmer who, while still Christian like other classical Protestants, was a rank heretic (a Zwinglian about the Eucharist). (The Sarum Use Mass was a different animal - basically a medieval, very prolix form of the Roman Mass.) Byzantinizing it (as opposed to unprotestantizing it, which many Anglo-Catholics have done) in the name of 'correcting' it seems as unhistorical as the latinizations that Byzantine Catholics live with.

I'm also curious as to exactly what it is about the rite that is unacceptably Protestant-- not because it was written by Protestants, but because it conflicts with Orthodox doctrine.

Actually the rite was corrected, as I said, to make it more according to Orthodox doctrine, but the original rite even without the byzantine epiclesis and other corrections would have seemed "acceptable". The first Anglican liturgies were meant to be ambiguous so that they were accepted by the Catholic-minded Anglican, and those with moderated Protestant ideas.

Did you mean "acceptable" or unacceptable? If you really meant the former, I'm confused.

At any rate, it ain't unambiguous as modified.

It seems to be trying to state Thomist transsubstantiation, given the word choice of "changed into". I was given to understand that the Thomist theory is generally not accepted in Orthodoxy. Typical modern Anglican liturgies say neither "be for us" nor "be changed", but simply "be".

To some extent these changes are futile. I don't think any of them are sufficient to persuade laymen to abandon their private theories, and certainly will not bar the most quintessentially Anglican position of saying that the consecrated elements "are whatever Jesus said they are".

Quote

In my opinion, even if the Anglican liturgists had the best intention to incorporate eastern elements and to have a reverent and holy liturgy, it was a composed liturgy, fabricated with various elements and some innovations.

As far as "innovations" are concerned, this is certainly going to lead to trouble when the current Orthodox liturgies are subjected to the same test. They have innovations too; they just got their innovating over with earlier (perhaps). And in any case none of these "criticisms" is a criticism. The notion that there is something innately wrong with a composite rite is something about which there isn't an Orthodox consensus, so at this point people are still at the stage of merely offering personal opinions. At any rate no justification for why there is something wrong with a composite rite is being offered.

I am new to this board and, as an Orthodox Christian who belongs to a Western Rite mission of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, I wanted to add a bit to this thread, though I realize it's a little dated by now.

Our mission used to use the rite of St. Tikhon on Sundays and the rite of St. Gregory on other feast days, but for the last few years we have used St. Gregory exclusively.

Most members of our mission are former Episcopalians of the Anglo-Catholic variety, so the St. Tikhon rite was very familiar to us. It is based on the communion service from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church in the USA, but with the changes and additions typically found in the unofficial missals (e.g., Anglican and American) compiled by Anglo-Catholics to "catholicize" the Prayer Book service.

Please note that the American Episcopal communion service is rather different from that in the Church of England's 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which is still the official version over there. The American service was derived from the liturgy of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which was heavily influenced by Eastern liturgies. The English rite is still very much the work of Cranmer in the radical 1552 version, which was much more Protestant than his original 1549 version. The "invocation" of the American prayer of consecration was ambiguous enough, however, that the compilers of the rite of St. Tikhon replaced it with the epiklesis from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This epiklesis (albeit in a somewhat different English rendering) was also inserted into the canon of the rite of St. Gregory, since the Roman canon does not have an epiklesis.

We also have a hymnal which includes a wide selection of pre- and post-schism hymns. We don't mind singing hymns written by Protestants or Roman Catholics so long as they are in harmony with the Orthodox faith. Congregational hymn singing during the liturgy is a deeply cherished tradition and greatly contributes to the beauty of our offering.

Far from being artificial constructions, the rites of St. Tikhon and St. Gregory are in direct continuity with the liturgies celebrated by Anglicans and Roman Catholics whose faith is so close to our own. Those of us who came from these traditions into Orthodoxy do not repudiate our pre-Orthodox Christian experience. Rather we see it as a preparation for entering into the fullness of Orthodoxy, whereby that which is good is retained and that which was in error has been shed.

The idea of liturgical fabrication is interesting and somewhat controversial. I'd like to throw out some ideas on this as food for thought.

We Orthodox commonly decry the RC liturgy as being the product of a "committee", and in a sense this is factually true when you are discussing the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo (and to a lesser extent true even when discussing the Tridentine Liturgy, which was also "officially promulgated"). But is it really the case that our own liturgies have not also been "officially promulgated" and, to a certain extent at least, adopted "by committee"? I'm thinking here not so much of the period of the first millenium when things seemed to develop more "organically" (although we mustn't forget the numerous conciliar canons that deal with liturgical matters, particularly at the council "in Trullo"), but rather of the revision of the Constantinopolitan Typikon after 1204 to reflect the monastical usage -- that doesn't seem to have been "organic" (although the monastic use developed organically ... more on that below) in a meaningul sense, but a rather abrupt, top-down driven change that became *mandatory*, at least for the Constantinopolitan Church. Of course, the use didn't become more or less uniform throughout the remainder of Orthodoxy for some time, but doesn't that speak more to our organizational structures (or lack thereof ) than to any real "organic" idea of development? And certainly the Mucovite changes under Patriarch Nikon were anything but organic. I think that we may be less organically developed, liturgically, than we sometimes perceive ourselves to be, honestly.

The point relating to the monastical use is interesting, because it is obviously clear that before the monastical usages were largely grafted onto the 'cathedral' usages, there was a different monastical use, distinct from that used in parishes and cathedrals. This didn't seem to bother anyone at the time (something that the champions of liturgical uniformity, aka "The Typikon Police", should bear in mind, I think). In fact, one can, rightly I think, view the monks of the time as liturgical innovators of a sort, adapting the liturgy to different circumstances, adding bits here and there, subtracting bits here and there. I find it ironic, therefore, that when monastics today try to do the same thing, they're castigated by many for not following the usages of the parochial and cathedral parishes. Funny, to me at least, how things have come full circle, in a way.

Because they wanted to keep the natural development as legitimate as possible. The Anglicans were worshipping with a particular usage, and if we are going to do a Western Rite we should do it for people that actually are using it, not just recreate some extinct Rite that no one has used for 1000 years.